Shared Decision-making in Different Types of Decisions in Medical Specialist Consultations

Author(s):  
Ellen M. Driever ◽  
Anne M. Stiggelbout ◽  
Paul L. P. Brand
2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roosmaryn Pilgram ◽  
Francisca Snoeck Henkemans

Abstract Shared medical decision-making has been analyzed as a particular kind of argumentative discussion. In the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory, different types of conditions and rules are formulated for the ideal of a reasonable argumentative discussion. In this paper, we shall first show how making use of the distinctions made in the pragma-dialectical theory between different types of conditions for reasonable discussion can help to give a more systematic account of the obstacles that need to be overcome for shared decision-making to be successful. Next, by referring to the rules for critical discussion, we shall provide a more detailed explanation than can be found in the literature on health communication of why certain types of conduct of the participants in the medical encounter can be analyzed as obstacles to the goal of shared decision-making.


2014 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Pryce ◽  
Amanda Hall

Shared decision-making (SDM), a component of patient-centered care, is the process in which the clinician and patient both participate in decision-making about treatment; information is shared between the parties and both agree with the decision. Shared decision-making is appropriate for health care conditions in which there is more than one evidence-based treatment or management option that have different benefits and risks. The patient's involvement ensures that the decisions regarding treatment are sensitive to the patient's values and preferences. Audiologic rehabilitation requires substantial behavior changes on the part of patients and includes benefits to their communication as well as compromises and potential risks. This article identifies the importance of shared decision-making in audiologic rehabilitation and the changes required to implement it effectively.


2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. F. M. Stalmeier ◽  
M. S. Roosmalen ◽  
L. C. G. Josette Verhoef ◽  
E. H. M. Hoekstra-Weebers ◽  
J. C. Oosterwijk ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shirley M. Glynn ◽  
Lisa Dixon ◽  
Amy Cohen ◽  
Amy Drapalski ◽  
Deborah Medoff ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 09 (06) ◽  
pp. 250-252
Author(s):  
Rainer Bubenzer

Auch in der Onkologie hat das Thema Patientenbeteiligung zunehmend an Bedeutung gewonnen. Ein häufig genanntes Mantra dazu lautet: Viele Patienten wünschen sich eine aktivere Rolle bei der eigenen Gesundheitsversorgung, am besten auf „Augenhöhe“. Ein Ansatz, der solche Wünsche berücksichtigt, ist die partizipative Entscheidungsfindung (PEF, shared-decision-making). Auch auf gesundheitspolitischer Ebene spielt PEF eine wachsende Rolle, wird z. B. im Rahmen des Nationalen Krebsplans spezifisch gefördert (►siehe Kasten). Ob und wieweit diese ambitionierten Ziele in der Onkologie in der Versorgungswirklichkeit angekommen sind, war eines der Themen beim 17. Deutschen Kongress für Versorgungsforschung in Berlin. Es zeigte sich: PEF ist in vielen Bereichen der Onkologie noch längst nicht angekommen.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document